The counter-argument to all the flame about sterile people comes from changing one's perspective:
The government makes laws that must fit the overwhelming majority - there will always be anecdotal cases that don't fit. In this case, the government may have a legitimate interest in encouraging unions that can produce children. Since most heterosexual unions can produce children, but no homoxexual unions can, it can be argued that the law makes sense.
The counter argument to the gender discrimination argument runs this way:
There is no gender discrimination - all men are equally allowed to marry women. All women are equally allowed to mary men. Everyone is equally allowed to mary a person of the opposite sex. Just because a few individuals are not interested in members of the opposite sex does not make the system inequitable.
For what its worth, kudos to the folks who pointed out that Marriage has now always been a church thing.
I wouldn't worry too much about some scammer from Lagos challenging the payment in a US court. Those who come to the courts with unclean hands seldom get any relief.
Even if the scammer did arrive, how does one demonstrate that the goods shipped were not in fact what was ordered in such a way as to convice a court that your scamming activities are minor enough by comparison as to give you relief?
I've done a lot of door-to-door campaigning, and there are times when this would have been handy. It all comes down to neighborhood density. Low density areas tend to be affluent or agrarian. Rich people and farmers vote. The less dense your population, the more likely the people you speak to will be voting. By contrast, in high-density areas as around colleges, the chances that whoever answers the door will vote are lower - but you can reach more of them because the travel time is reduced. The speech is usually 1 minute.
The net result is, you can visit more probable voters' homes in less time - and get more votes on election day. Kudo's for "IT."
Userfriendly.org circa 2000. Cat hat duct-tape on it's tail if I recall. Great strip, I read it every day. (Of course back then I was stringing coaxial cable for the BNC network we used...)
We did this for two reasons. First, if it has a number, we're less attached to it when the inevitable happens. Second, my wife was allergic to cats but we weren't sure how badly.
If we had spent $3500 on a cat, we're then somehow obligated to spend $4000 on feline coronary bypass surgery, $8000 on a feline tummy-tuck, and $3000 on feline counseling services.... Where does this end?
Contrary to the majority here today, I really think the legal system used in most United States today is in very good shape. The court rules in place frequently provide for summary judgment where there is a complaint made without merit, and even call for legal fees and costs to be paid by the person who filed the frivolous complaint.
We can't limit the system without taking away a man's rights. If there is a problem, it lies with the prevailing attitudes in your jurisdiction, not with the law.
They didn't have a central sync-ing server, but they had IR ports all over the place. We had 5+ in the lawschool. My wife and I still have them... I use mine, but do you think we could still trade the other one for a keg?
I'd expect a lot of smaller, more obscure schools to rank more highly. Particularly when the ratio of technology to student body is so heavily used. USD for example not only has a great ratio of desktops to students, but also provides PALMs to incomming students and has network/power conneectors for laptops at most classroom seats. Yet they only scored number 17.
It would seem that a college with very few students would have a far easier time beating the ratio game.
I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.
If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.
Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.
1. Can't kill ourselves on the highways no matter how fast or drunk we get, there's nothing to hit.
2. You almost never hear the word N*gg*r, around here we assume anyone with any pigment in their skin whatsoever is a graduate student.
3. Would also let the KKK hold a peaceful rally with impunity (I think that's covered by the 1st amendment.) But we'd ask them to schedule it in the winter to generate heat.
4. Allow write-in voting, and don't have any form of voter registration, (using instead any reasonable evidence of residence in the precinct,) so electronic voting machines are pretty unlikely.
Where does this intense desire to use an electronic voting system come from in the first place? What is the net result of pulling people away from the process? Withough vote counters and poll workers, will we eventually cause people to care even less about elections?
Florida taught us one thing: News broadcasts showing jillions of people counting and recounting ballots can spur interest in the political process and get more people to vote.
This is a neat gadget, but it lacks a few things like touchscreen & a built in cell-phone... maybe 802.11 so I can swap tunes from my HDD more easily... in short:
... so can we actually type out "legitimate" instead of using "legit?" I mean, I realize we all miss the days of "I checked it out and its legit, Microsoft will send you a zillion dollars if you forward this email to 10 people..."
If we don't use the word legit, it will serve as a spam flag.
Right tool, using the wrong end....
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
... might be the best way to describe the origin of everyone's complaint about this two party system. I direct your attention to Justice Story's "On the Constitution of the United States" at around page 161 et. seq. Justice story wrote, in the 1820's, that the whole point of the electoral college was to select people who could deliberate on the best candidate for President without the influence of parties, re-election, or other legislative duties. That is why folks who already hold national office are prohibited from being electors.
If we were sensible enough to vote for good electors, people we know and trust from our own states, and let them decide like the constitution intended... there would be no two-party system.
Actually, this can vary depending your citizenship. Citizens of Some states can only register by going to the local courthouse, some states permit and encourage private groups to do registration drives, and citizens of North Dakota do not need to register at all. (They just have to bring some proof that they live in the precinct, or sign a statement to that effect at the polls.)
Have you ever wondered why there is no nice, easy word to describe a person who lives in any one of the United States? Most folks use "American," but we all know that's awfully vague what with dozens of nations in the Americas. There is a reason for this, Folks that live in the United States are citizens of their State. I know South Dakotans, Minnesotans, and Californians, but I don't know any "United Statesians." Even the Constitution of the United States refers to the people as "citizens of the several states."
The point is, Any change in the way the electoral college works must be done in your state, by your state. If you want to split your electoral vote, that is a decision made by your state legislature, not Washington D.C. This isn't some grand question of constitutional reform, its a simple question of state law.
Sooner or later, sites like this will finally re-teach the citizens of the several states who they really are, and then... perhaps... people will make the changes they feel they need through the tools that the system already provides.
1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona.
2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted.
3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008.
Why not just permit the electors to make up their own minds then rather than relegating them to the status of mere placeholders?
Do I think a system where Electors actually did research and picked a candidate after they themselves were elected? Absolutely. Do I think the citizens of the several states are ready to admit they won't spend the time doing their own research and making a decision based on that? Nope.
Your numbers are correct, but your reasoning for change is not. The presedential election is a team game. You and the rest of the citizens of your state are a team. In football you don't award seperate points to the individual players, In elections for the president you don't either.
The order of the Black Hand killed President Kennedy...
1. Order of the Black Hand (OBH) infiltrates the Order of the Young Turks in 1912. 2. Through this they are able to perpetuate the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and touch off WWI. 3. This draws Czar Nicholas from Moscow and leaves that Rasputin guy in charge. 4. Rasputin does all sorts of dumb things. 5. Trotsky writes about all the mistakes Rasputin made. 6. Oswald reads Trotsky, and is motivated to change things in the US... 7. Oswald assassinates president Kennedy.
Thus, the OBH is responsible for the death of our President. Hows that for a conspiracy?
(Please note, the government internet keyword trolls should pick up on this post in a heartbeat... I hear a knock at the door.)
Congress can regulate it if its commercial and it crosses state lines. How far "UP" this authority goes is probably limited by the boundary of space. No nation has yet asserted the authority to regulate what goes on beyond the border of "space." This is what lets US sattelites fly over Russia. So Fly straight up, don't cross the border into Utah, and you're MUCH Harder to regulate.
Slashdot Mirror
The counter-argument to all the flame about sterile people comes from changing one's perspective:
The government makes laws that must fit the overwhelming majority - there will always be anecdotal cases that don't fit. In this case, the government may have a legitimate interest in encouraging unions that can produce children. Since most heterosexual unions can produce children, but no homoxexual unions can, it can be argued that the law makes sense.
The counter argument to the gender discrimination argument runs this way:
There is no gender discrimination - all men are equally allowed to marry women. All women are equally allowed to mary men. Everyone is equally allowed to mary a person of the opposite sex. Just because a few individuals are not interested in members of the opposite sex does not make the system inequitable.
For what its worth, kudos to the folks who pointed out that Marriage has now always been a church thing.
I wouldn't worry too much about some scammer from Lagos challenging the payment in a US court. Those who come to the courts with unclean hands seldom get any relief.
Even if the scammer did arrive, how does one demonstrate that the goods shipped were not in fact what was ordered in such a way as to convice a court that your scamming activities are minor enough by comparison as to give you relief?
I've done a lot of door-to-door campaigning, and there are times when this would have been handy. It all comes down to neighborhood density. Low density areas tend to be affluent or agrarian. Rich people and farmers vote. The less dense your population, the more likely the people you speak to will be voting. By contrast, in high-density areas as around colleges, the chances that whoever answers the door will vote are lower - but you can reach more of them because the travel time is reduced. The speech is usually 1 minute.
The net result is, you can visit more probable voters' homes in less time - and get more votes on election day. Kudo's for "IT."
Userfriendly.org circa 2000. Cat hat duct-tape on it's tail if I recall. Great strip, I read it every day. (Of course back then I was stringing coaxial cable for the BNC network we used...)
We got a cat, it was free... we named it 1.
We did this for two reasons. First, if it has a number, we're less attached to it when the inevitable happens. Second, my wife was allergic to cats but we weren't sure how badly.
If we had spent $3500 on a cat, we're then somehow obligated to spend $4000 on feline coronary bypass surgery, $8000 on a feline tummy-tuck, and $3000 on feline counseling services.... Where does this end?
Contrary to the majority here today, I really think the legal system used in most United States today is in very good shape. The court rules in place frequently provide for summary judgment where there is a complaint made without merit, and even call for legal fees and costs to be paid by the person who filed the frivolous complaint.
We can't limit the system without taking away a man's rights. If there is a problem, it lies with the prevailing attitudes in your jurisdiction, not with the law.
This concept (Like so many) seems to attack everything I've been told since grade-school. Can you cite a source site (sic), or print article?
They didn't have a central sync-ing server, but they had IR ports all over the place. We had 5+ in the lawschool. My wife and I still have them... I use mine, but do you think we could still trade the other one for a keg?
I'd expect a lot of smaller, more obscure schools to rank more highly. Particularly when the ratio of technology to student body is so heavily used. USD for example not only has a great ratio of desktops to students, but also provides PALMs to incomming students and has network/power conneectors for laptops at most classroom seats. Yet they only scored number 17.
It would seem that a college with very few students would have a far easier time beating the ratio game.
I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.
If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.
Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.
In North Dakota, we:
1. Can't kill ourselves on the highways no matter how fast or drunk we get, there's nothing to hit.
2. You almost never hear the word N*gg*r, around here we assume anyone with any pigment in their skin whatsoever is a graduate student.
3. Would also let the KKK hold a peaceful rally with impunity (I think that's covered by the 1st amendment.) But we'd ask them to schedule it in the winter to generate heat.
4. Allow write-in voting, and don't have any form of voter registration, (using instead any reasonable evidence of residence in the precinct,) so electronic voting machines are pretty unlikely.
Where does this intense desire to use an electronic voting system come from in the first place? What is the net result of pulling people away from the process? Withough vote counters and poll workers, will we eventually cause people to care even less about elections?
Florida taught us one thing: News broadcasts showing jillions of people counting and recounting ballots can spur interest in the political process and get more people to vote.
This is a neat gadget, but it lacks a few things like touchscreen & a built in cell-phone... maybe 802.11 so I can swap tunes from my HDD more easily... in short:
I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
... so can we actually type out "legitimate" instead of using "legit?" I mean, I realize we all miss the days of "I checked it out and its legit, Microsoft will send you a zillion dollars if you forward this email to 10 people..."
If we don't use the word legit, it will serve as a spam flag.
... might be the best way to describe the origin of everyone's complaint about this two party system. I direct your attention to Justice Story's "On the Constitution of the United States" at around page 161 et. seq. Justice story wrote, in the 1820's, that the whole point of the electoral college was to select people who could deliberate on the best candidate for President without the influence of parties, re-election, or other legislative duties. That is why folks who already hold national office are prohibited from being electors.
If we were sensible enough to vote for good electors, people we know and trust from our own states, and let them decide like the constitution intended... there would be no two-party system.
Actually, this can vary depending your citizenship. Citizens of Some states can only register by going to the local courthouse, some states permit and encourage private groups to do registration drives, and citizens of North Dakota do not need to register at all. (They just have to bring some proof that they live in the precinct, or sign a statement to that effect at the polls.)
Have you ever wondered why there is no nice, easy word to describe a person who lives in any one of the United States? Most folks use "American," but we all know that's awfully vague what with dozens of nations in the Americas. There is a reason for this, Folks that live in the United States are citizens of their State. I know South Dakotans, Minnesotans, and Californians, but I don't know any "United Statesians." Even the Constitution of the United States refers to the people as "citizens of the several states."
The point is, Any change in the way the electoral college works must be done in your state, by your state. If you want to split your electoral vote, that is a decision made by your state legislature, not Washington D.C. This isn't some grand question of constitutional reform, its a simple question of state law.
Sooner or later, sites like this will finally re-teach the citizens of the several states who they really are, and then... perhaps... people will make the changes they feel they need through the tools that the system already provides.
Three points to consider:
1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona.
2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted.
3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008.
At one time, the adoption rate for Linux was indistinguishable from Zero....
Why not just permit the electors to make up their own minds then rather than relegating them to the status of mere placeholders?
Do I think a system where Electors actually did research and picked a candidate after they themselves were elected? Absolutely. Do I think the citizens of the several states are ready to admit they won't spend the time doing their own research and making a decision based on that? Nope.
Your numbers are correct, but your reasoning for change is not. The presedential election is a team game. You and the rest of the citizens of your state are a team. In football you don't award seperate points to the individual players, In elections for the president you don't either.
How do I sign up?
The order of the Black Hand killed President Kennedy...
1. Order of the Black Hand (OBH) infiltrates the Order of the Young Turks in 1912.
2. Through this they are able to perpetuate the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and touch off WWI.
3. This draws Czar Nicholas from Moscow and leaves that Rasputin guy in charge.
4. Rasputin does all sorts of dumb things.
5. Trotsky writes about all the mistakes Rasputin made.
6. Oswald reads Trotsky, and is motivated to change things in the US...
7. Oswald assassinates president Kennedy.
Thus, the OBH is responsible for the death of our President. Hows that for a conspiracy?
(Please note, the government internet keyword trolls should pick up on this post in a heartbeat... I hear a knock at the door.)
WOW
/. but this has to be the single most elegant, profound, and insightful I've EVER seen.
I've had a lot of arguments shot down over the years on
Kudos!
Congress can regulate it if its commercial and it crosses state lines. How far "UP" this authority goes is probably limited by the boundary of space. No nation has yet asserted the authority to regulate what goes on beyond the border of "space." This is what lets US sattelites fly over Russia. So Fly straight up, don't cross the border into Utah, and you're MUCH Harder to regulate.